Transcript Right Understanding

Today’s Lecture
• Admin stuff
• More basic Buddhist philosophy
– Concluding Rebirth without a soul
– Beginning Buddhist moral philosophy
Admin stuff
• Are there any questions about the Third Assignment
topics?
• Any questions or concerns about the Third
Assignment?
• There is a talk by Prof. J. Thompson (Sociology) for
the Gender and Society Workshop on Thursday,
January 22nd at 4:00 p.m. (in UC 224A) entitled
“Feminism and Female Serial Killing”.
• Now I don’t often do this, but here’s a great (read
reliable) Buddhist web site:
<http://www.buddhanet.net>
Rebirth without a soul
• Where we left off:
• If there is no soul, then how is transmigration possible? Isn’t
‘transmigration’ a misnomer?
• Before answering this question ask the following:
• Without a soul how is it possible to have a personal identity
through time (in this birth)? (The answer to this question
will take you at least part way to answering the first
question.)
• In seeking an answer this second question ask a third:
• Without an essence how is it possible to talk of a tree being
the same tree through time, or a table being the same table
through time, or a sun being the same sun through time?
(The answer to this question will take you at least part way
to answering the second question.)
Rebirth without a soul
• Have a look at The Questions of King Milinda in
your Buddhist Scriptures. On pages 149-51 you have
a brief discussion of personal identity (with
particular focus on rebirth and/or moral
responsibility).
• Nagasena, the monk who is the primary interlocutor
with King Milinda in this text, suggests that, in order
to get an initial grasp of the Buddhist view of
personal identity, we should think of, on the one
hand, human ontogeny and, on the other hand, the
flame of a lamp that endures a whole night’s use.
Rebirth without a soul
• In both cases, Nagasena ‘argues’, we can sensibly
talk of the same person, or same flame existing
through time, while at the same time recognizing
that we can also sensibly talk of important or
significant differences in the person or flame at an
earlier and later time slice (see p. 150 of Buddhist
Scriptures).
• Roughly speaking, this is the meaning of the claim
that the one who is reborn is neither the same as the
one who died, nor another (pp.149-50 of Buddhist
Scriptures).
Rebirth without a soul
• In human ontogeny compare yourself now to what you were
like when you were one or one and a half years old.
• Buddhist philosophers will suggest that though we can
sensibly talk of you existing at these stages of development,
you are an importantly different person now than you were
then.
• If this does not resonate with you, compare yourself now to
what you were like when you were a new born (assuming,
of course, that newborns are persons).
• If you live to be a hundred and ten, you may well be an
importantly different person then than you are now,
particularly if you undergo certain cognitive degradations
often associated with extreme age.
Rebirth without a soul
• It is the Buddhist view that to take any given time
slice as being quintessentially you is arbitrary. So to
consider yourself to be quintessentially you when
you are twenty-five or thirty is arbitrary … it reflects
an idea of self that you hold about yourself, but it
makes no more sense to pick out this period than the
period when you were ten, nineteen, or when you
will be seventy-five.
• According to the Buddhist view of personal identity,
you are the whole process. What’s more, the ‘you’ of
this process undergoes change, sometimes
significant change, through time.
Rebirth without a soul
• To get to talk of personal identity through death and rebirth,
according to Buddhism, you need to broaden your view of
what it means to be a continuous process.
• For Buddhists it makes no more sense to treat death or
rebirth as a break in the relevant causal process which
constitutes you as a being through time than it would be to
treat reaching seventy as the cut off point after which you no
longer exist.
• Thus in one sense, according to Buddhism, you are reborn,
and in another sense you are not. Just as in one sense you
are the same person through time in this birth, and in
another sense you are not (pages 149-50 of your Buddhist
Scriptures).
Buddhist Moral Philosophy
• Basic Buddhist ethics includes (but is not limited to),
and this should come as no surprise, the following
five precepts:
• (1) Avoid doing harm to other living beings,
• (2) avoid taking what is not yours (or what is not
given),
• (3) avoid false speech,
• (4) avoid sexual misconduct,
• (5) avoid the ingestion of intoxicants (see your
Buddhist Scriptures, p.70, p.162 of Asian
Philosophies, or pp.83-90 of your Course Pack).
Buddhist Moral Philosophy
• A relatively straightforward way to remember the basic
precepts in Buddhism is to remember the relevant three
stages or steps in the Eightfold Path, Right Speech, Right
Action and Right Livelihood.
• Right Speech includes not lying, and also gossiping, harsh
language, hurtful speech and ‘superficial speech’ (or idle
talk).
• Right Action includes the precepts above, excluding (3)
(which is covered under Right Speech).
• Right Livelihood consists of a commitment not to do, or
make a living from, that which would violate Right Speech
or Action. This includes arms dealing or manufacture,
soldiering, and butchering (see your Asian Philosophies,
pp.162-63).
Buddhist Moral Philosophy
• A question we can ask ourselves here: Given the
importance of empirical testing AND the rejection of
mere appeals to doctrinal authority when justifying
claims within Buddhism, how are these precepts
justified or grounded, and how are we to decide, in
any given situation, what we ought to do?
• Through an examination of such scriptures as the
Dhammapada we can, with a little effort, glean
some Buddhist methods, or procedures, for deciding
moral conduct that can apply to either acts or
principles of action.
• I will describe four such methods, or procedures.
Some grounds for deciding moral
conduct in Buddhism
• (1) An appeal to ‘the method of universalizing selfinterest’ is at work in at least some Buddhist moral
philosophy.
• This is just to say, if you could imagine someone
acting towards you in an analogous fashion to how
you are planning to act and you would (strongly)
prefer that she would not so act, then you ought not
to so act now.
Some grounds for deciding moral conduct in
Buddhism
• “All are frightened of the rod. Of death all are
afraid. Having made oneself the example, one should
neither slay nor cause to slay. All are frightened of
the rod. For all, life is dear. Having made oneself the
example, one should neither slay nor cause to slay.”
(Dhammapada 129, translated by John Ross Carter,
emphasis mine).
• “All beings tremble before violence. All fear death.
All love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can
you hurt? What harm can you do?” (p.36 of your
Dhammapada, emphasis mine).
Some grounds for deciding moral conduct in
Buddhism
• (2) Judging what is conducive to, or hinders, our
spiritual advancement (i.e. our pursuit of moksha) is
also a way of judging the value of certain actions
(and the principles of action that these actions
instantiate).
• This can also include judging what arises from the
three root evils/poisons - delusion/ignorance,
greed/grasping and hatred/aversion (Asian
Philosophies, pp.153, 172-73) (as they are
themselves condemned because of their influence in
perpetuating the cycle of rebirth and preventing
enlightenment).